On Thursday 03 August 2006 00:45, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:47:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > On Wednesday 02 August 2006 20:11, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > > Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>> > But you lose debian specific patches to be clearly separated from > > > >>> > the upstrem source (digging diff.gz for that is not fun), unless > > > >>> > one knows where to find > > > >>> > > > >>> First, what is a "Debian-specific patch?" Isn't everything in > > > >>> diff.gz that? > > > >> > > > >> Right, but you have parts which touch upstream files > > > >> (debian/patches/*), and parts which does not (debian/!patches). I > > > >> prefer them to be clearly separated when the whole debian source > > > >> package is unpacked. > > > > > > > > Not only that. Many packages make changes to upstream files that are > > > > Debian-specific (e.g. for using infrastructure or libraries that > > > > don't exist outside), but also changes to upstream files that > > > > will/should be temporary because upstream will apply the same patch, > > > > has been asked to, or the patch has been taken from their development > > > > version. > > > > > > Iff we use a branch to each change we can have same behaviour using a > > > SCM but anyone that would want to change or contrib changes will need > > > to learn how we deal with this all. > > > > This is fine, but (again) you forget about your 'apt-get source' users, > > which are not supposed to be aware of your SCM, where your repo is,
please, find 'SCM' in the above row, thanks. > > patches applied to the upstream source and why they have been applied. > > Do you think you can stick to one story for a whole thread? Yes, I think I do. > Do you want to > know what patches are in there, or not? First you said "I prefer them to > be clearly separated when the whole debian source package is unpacked." and > "Some people prefer to have debian-specific patches (applied to the > upstream source) separated and with comments appended" (I presume you're > part of the "Some people"). Yet now you're saying "'apt-get source' users > [...] are not supposed to be aware of [...] patches applied to the upstream What I wrote is 'are not supposed to be aware of your SCM' in the first place (just look above), which makes significant difference. > source and why they have been applied." > > Which is it? Clearly identified patches, or "not supposed to be aware"? Obviously 'SCM' is what you missed above, which led you to such a confusion. Yes, people might be able to apt-get source and have patches which are to be (un)applied to the upstream source clearly identified without having to bother with any SCM to do the _patching_ work. (SCM == VCS) > > I.e. if you have patches, do them debian way (using a debian patch > > system) > > Please identify "the debian way", so I may start using it. > > Oh wait. There isn't any single Debian way. Never has been, almost > certainly never will be. There is no signle SCM you can do packaging either. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
